aa5874

Where did he say Paul? The passage states 12 illiterate men. Paul is NOT in the passage. You cover nothing with your rhetoric. You need to produce a passage where Justin mentioned Paul but you cannot.

You don't even understand what is an argument from silence. It is absolutely necessary and IMPERATIVE to develop the theory that the Pauline Epistles, the Pauline Churches and Paul were UNKNOWN up to the mid 2nd century that I locate SOURCES that do NOT mention Paul, the Epistles and the Pauline churches.

That is ABSOLUTELY basic.

People charged with crimes are EXONERATED when there is NO evidence.

You should know that once there is NO evidence a theory can be developed that the person did NOT commit the crime.

This is so fundamental.

You are NOT listening or perhaps don't want to but your opinion is of ZERO value when I am dealing with the WRITTEN EVIDENCE from antiquity.

The evidence in the very Pauline writings EXPOSES Paul as a Blatant LIAR. I have EVIDENCE from antiquity.

Examine 1 Cor.11 The Pauline writer is an ABSOLUTE BLATANT LIAR. Whether or not Jesus did live the Pauline claim is FALSE. A dead man could not have given PAUL any information about the supposed Last Supper as stated in 1 Cor.11.

There are MORE Pauline lies.

The Pauline writings are historically and chronologically bogus and were UNKNOWN up to the mid 2nd century based on Apologetic sources.

Duvduv

In my humble opinion I don't see how the package of epistles could have been produced by the same people who produced the gospels through the Roman regime as texts for the new empire religion.

Surely they would have included gospel stories in the epistles and introduced Paul into the gospel narrative itself so as to keep everything together as one consistent whole.
I also don't think that a cabal would have seen the need for four gospels either.
Whoever produced the epistle package must have done so BEFORE. any gospel texts appeared.

Finally as part of an overall conspiracy, there would have been no way for them to know that all their productive efforts would be accepted or survive. And the idea that there were various so-called heresies means there was no ironclad guarantee that their own version would win over time. Plus the fact that there were many other texts means that sects did develop independent of Imperial sponsorship.

Duvduv

And Acts seems to know nothing about the gospel narratives or theological points of the epistles. So with the contradictions and differences involved it would seem that Acts emerged without benefit of the epistles either.
This would be strange since Acts creates the world of "Paul" only in a very superficial way.

Maklelan

SP follows MT and LXX in using "words" instead of "writings." It's of course possible that he's quoting from the Samaritikon, but there's no indication of it, and in textual criticism you prefer the witness of the extant text rather than the possible witness of the non-extant text.

Maklelan

So you reject the scholarly consensus that holds that Acts was written by the same person who wrote Luke? On what grounds, specifically?

Duvduv

The so-called consensus usually focuses on issues of language and style. The question of context is never seriously addressed. The fact is that the Paul of Acts never addresses a statement, aphorism or historical detail of the historical Jesus even a single time. On the other hand he never relates to the theology of the epistles either. It is striking that this Paul shows no interest in Bethlehem, Nazareth, Calvary, no awe or reverence for those who walked with the Savior. We can continue about the epistles if you want.

Maklelan

As I have said many times before, Paul's existence is not predicated on whether or not Martyr said the name "Paul." You continue to refuse to engage that very simple fact. This is the problem with your particular argument from silence. You can't address any evidence or build any kind of case. All you can do is appeal again and again to absence as if it constituted evidence. You cannot give us a compelling reason to believe that if Martyr knew of Paul he would have explicitly named him in the text, so you cannot hang an argument on the fact that he didn't. You also are completely unable to address the fact that Martyr quoted Paul.

I need to do no such thing. You really don't have the foggiest idea how historical criticism works.

Stellar syntax.

No, it would be imperative to locate sources that we would strongly expect to mention Paul that don't, but you can locate no such sources, since there's really no argument you can conjure up to convince anyone that if author X knew of Paul or his writings, he definitely would have mentioned them. You can't even acknowledge that facet of your argument. That's how far gone you are.

People should never use court metaphors when dealing with historical or textual criticism. People are exonerated without evidence because our legal system presupposes a specific conclusion for a specific reason. Specifically, they presuppose a person is innocent explicitly to protect the innocent from false imprisonment. It falls upon the prosecution to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that a person is not innocent. Short of that threshold the court reverts to its default position, namely innocence. This is why guilty people often go free. Our judicial system prioritizes protecting the innocent over punishing the guilty. There is no such presupposition or protection in historical criticism. The conclusion at which you arrive is the conclusion that the evidence supports the most. Period. If you have no evidence, you have no evidence. The only time absence of evidence is positive evidence of anything is when we can reasonably conclude that scenario X would definitely leave evidence where we find none. You cannot sustain the argument that if Martyr knew of Paul and his writings he would have explicitly named him. Martyr's own use of the gospels precludes such an argument. Your argument cannot get off the ground.

To the legal system, not to historical or textual criticism.

Let me know when you actually deal with evidence, because you just got finished telling me that you don't need evidence.

So you've already considered the possibility that Paul really and sincerely believed he was visited by Jesus, and have rejected that possibility? On what grounds?

Of course there are.

Here's the conclusion you keep belching up without a shred of evidence. I will continue to point out that you continue to ignore a lot of what I say just because you obviously don't have the skills or resources to address it directly. Keep up the good work.

Maklelan

So you believe it's not really the scholarly consensus? If not, why else would you use "so-called"?

And content, and theology, and soteriology, and textual history.

I keep forgetting that professionals never check the context.

And you have decided that if he knew of those details, he would have?

I really don't have strong feelings about the relationship of Acts to the epistles, but I'm kinda surprised that you reject continuity in language, style, content, theology, soteriology, and textual history between Luke and Acts only on the grounds that you believe if the author of Acts had actually known about the text of Luke, he would have had Paul explicitly mention some of those details, and this in light of the fact that the text of Acts is putatively intended to comprise a supplement to the very text where those details were already described. In other words, for the sake of argument, even though the author has already taken twenty-four chapters to describe Jesus' ministry, he should have made additional references to those events, just so the reader would think, "I guess this guy really did know about all the stuff he just finished telling me about." There's no corner of the world of historical criticism where that is a legitimate concern, much less enough of a concern to trump clear affinities in language, style, content, etc.

The first verse of Acts describes Luke as a treatise of all the things Jesus did. The book of Acts focuses on the work of the apostles. Can you give a compelling reason to think that if the author were really the same, he would tell that story with repeated quotations of the story he just finished telling? Why not just tell the next story and let the previous story stand?

Duvduv

I am not saying I REJECT it all, I am saying that many scholars totally IGNORE issues of context. They seem to consider it "heresy" to put as much emphasis on context as on language. I am more than happy to accept that the beginning of Acts was an add-on from a later period when the Luke gospel was joined with Acts. However, it's an excuse to say "Well, since the gospel says everything there is to say about Jesus, Paul in Acts doesn't have to say anything." That makes no sense given the context.

It is a leap of faith that "24 chapters" already said everything there was for Paul/Luke to say about the historical Jesus because of the deeply embedded assumptions behind that leap of faith, especially the one that asserts that it is "gospel truth" that the two were written by the same person.

Especially since the Paul of Acts takes no interest at all in any historical information or places connected with his allegedly historical Jesus. Not even once or twice (perish the thought). And of course his brief mention of the Baptist is more than his mention of the historical Jesus. Despite the fact that in the epistles "Paul" doesn't mention the Baptist even once. And of course Acts does not discuss some significant theological ideas presented in the epistles either.

Duvduv

Then we can throw in the questions of context brought up by the Nicene Creed and the first three Creeds of Antioch. My question as to WHY the words virgin and crucifixion are not included in the Nicene Creed are dismissed as irrelevant, which may be true for those who do not consider context.

But right now I do consider it something of a mystery as to which sect created the epistle package, where the gospels came from and when it happened in light of the Nicene Creed.